Microsoft Flight Simulator

Microsoft Flight Simulator is an exceptionally demanding title, and the combination of the Intel Core i5-11400F and Intel Arc B370 produces a very constrained experience. The measured data indicates that this system is firmly positioned at the lower end of the performance spectrum, requiring significant compromises in visual fidelity to achieve playable frame rates. The benchmark results show that the Arc B370, which relies on system shared memory, is the primary bottleneck, struggling to maintain fluid motion even at lower resolutions.

Settings Recommendations

The measured FPS data across all resolutions and settings presets reveals a clear pattern: this hardware combination is only viable at the lowest visual quality settings. At 1080p, the most common resolution, the system achieves an average of 50 FPS on Low settings, which is the only configuration that crosses the threshold for smooth, playable performance. The Low preset at 1080p is the definitive recommendation for this combo, as it provides the best balance of frame rate and responsiveness.

Stepping up to Medium settings at 1080p yields an average of 39 FPS, with minimums dropping to 33 FPS. While this is technically playable, the frame pacing is likely to suffer during complex flight scenarios over dense urban areas or during weather transitions. The High preset at 1080p drops to an average of 30 FPS, which is often considered the bare minimum for a playable experience, but the lack of minimum frame rate data suggests potential stutters. The Ultra preset is not recommended, as it produces an average of just 28 FPS at 1080p, making the game feel sluggish and unresponsive.

At 1440p, the situation becomes more challenging. The Low preset delivers an average of 41 FPS, which is acceptable for a less demanding flight experience, but the Medium preset falls to 32 FPS with minimums of 27 FPS. High and Ultra presets at 1440p produce averages of 24 FPS and 23 FPS respectively, rendering them largely unsuitable for a smooth experience. For 4K resolution, the data shows that even the Low preset averages only 30 FPS, indicating that this resolution should be avoided entirely for this configuration. The optimal experience is unambiguously 1080p with the Low settings preset, as it is the only measured configuration that consistently provides a frame rate above 45 FPS, offering a stable foundation for the simulation.

How This Combo Ranks

The overall ranking for this specific combination of CPU and GPU in Microsoft Flight Simulator is stark. The combo ranks 2770 out of 2996 tested combinations, placing it in the bottom 8% of all systems. This ranking, of 2770, underscores that the hardware is severely underpowered for the demands of this game, which is known for its heavy reliance on both CPU and GPU resources.

This positioning is largely driven by the GPU's performance percentile. The Intel Arc B370 sits in the 5th percentile of all GPUs, indicating that it performs worse than 95% of the discrete graphics cards and integrated solutions in the benchmark database. Its average benchmark score of 1184 is nearly identical to that of the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5570 and ATI Radeon HD 5770, which are legacy parts from a bygone era, with a deltaPct of -0.2% and -0.5% respectively. This indicates that the Arc B370's raw graphics processing power is on par with hardware that is over a decade old.

In contrast, the Intel Core i5-11400F is a much more capable component. It ranks in the 71st percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 17177. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7H12, which scores 17120 (a 0.3% difference), and the Intel Core i5-12450H, which scores 17239 (a -0.4% difference). This shows that the CPU is a mid-to-high-tier performer relative to the overall database, with strong multi-threaded capabilities. The massive discrepancy between the CPU's 71st percentile ranking and the GPU's 5th percentile ranking creates a severe bottleneck. The CPU is capable of feeding the GPU with data far faster than the GPU can process it, leaving the i5-11400F largely idle while the Arc B370 struggles to keep up.

GPU Role

The Intel Arc B370's specifications explain its poor performance in this title. It is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) based on the Xe3-LPG architecture, built on a 3 nm process node. Its most significant limitation is its memory configuration: it uses "System Shared" memory, meaning it has no dedicated VRAM of its own and must borrow from the system's main memory. The memory bus width and bandwidth are also listed as "System Shared" and "System Dependent," which means its performance is heavily reliant on the speed and configuration of the host system's DDR4 memory.

The GPU's clock speeds, with a base of 300 MHz and a boost of 2400 MHz, are relatively modest. More importantly, its compute resources are limited for a modern game. It has 1280 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 20 raster output units. The pixel rate is 48.00 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 96.00 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is a paltry 6.144 TFLOPS. These figures are far below what is required for a graphically intensive flight simulator that renders vast landscapes, detailed cockpits, and dynamic weather.

The game's results reflect these limitations. The frame rates are consistently low across all settings, but the impact is most visible when moving from Low to Medium settings. At 1080p, the average FPS drops from 50 to 39, a 22% reduction. This indicates that the GPU is almost entirely responsible for the frame rate, as it lacks the raw fill rate and shading power to handle the increased geometric complexity and texture detail. The lack of dedicated VRAM also means that texture loading and streaming can cause hitches, as the GPU competes with the CPU for memory bandwidth. The Arc B370 is fundamentally not designed for this class of game, and the measured data confirms that it is a severe limiting factor.

Measured FPS Breakdown

The measured FPS data shows a clear and consistent scaling across resolutions and settings. At 1920x1080, the system averages 50 FPS on Low, 39 FPS on Medium, 30 FPS on High, and 28 FPS on Ultra. The Medium preset provides the only recorded minimum and maximum frame rates, showing a range of 33 to 45 FPS, which indicates a somewhat unstable frame time. The jump from Low to Ultra at 1080p represents a 44% decrease in average frame rate, emphasizing the GPU's inability to handle higher fidelity.

Moving to 2560x1440, the performance drops further. The Low preset averages 41 FPS, which is still a playable figure, but the Medium preset falls to 32 FPS, with minimums recorded at 27 FPS and maximums at 36 FPS. The High and Ultra presets are nearly identical, with averages of 24 FPS and 23 FPS respectively. This suggests that at 1440p, the GPU is so overwhelmed that the difference between High and Ultra settings becomes negligible, as both are limited by the same fundamental compute and memory bandwidth constraints.

At 3840x2160, the results are largely unplayable. The Low preset averages 30 FPS, which is the only setting at this resolution to reach 30 FPS. The Medium preset averages 23 FPS, with a range of 20 to 27 FPS, while the High and Ultra presets sink to 18 FPS and 17 FPS respectively. The data shows that even at the lowest settings, 4K resolution is too demanding for the Arc B370. The performance delta between 1080p Low and 4K Low is a 40% reduction in average FPS, demonstrating that the GPU's limited pixel throughput and memory bandwidth are completely saturated at higher resolutions.

Resolution Scaling

The scaling of performance from 1080p to 4K provides significant insight into the system's limiting component. When comparing the Low settings preset, the average FPS drops from 50 at 1080p to 41 at 1440p, and then to 30 at 4K. This represents a 40% drop from 1080p to 4K. For the Medium preset, the average FPS drops from 39 at 1080p to 32 at 1440p and 23 at 4K, a 41% reduction from 1080p to 4K.

This pattern is a classic indicator of a GPU-bound scenario. If the system were CPU-bound, the frame rate would remain relatively constant across different resolutions, as the CPU workload would stay the same. However, the data shows a steep decline in performance as the resolution increases, which means the GPU is working progressively harder to fill the increasing number of pixels. The fact that the percentage drop is similar across all settings (around 40%) reinforces that the GPU is the sole limiting component.

The CPU, the Intel Core i5-11400F, with its 6 cores and 12 threads, has the processing headroom to handle the game's complex flight and physics calculations. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 14340 and single-core score of 2024 indicate a strong processor. The resolution scaling analysis confirms that the CPU is not the bottleneck; it is waiting on the GPU to render each frame. The Arc B370's system shared memory and low FP32 throughput are the primary reasons for this dramatic frame rate drop as pixel count increases.

CPU Role

While the GPU is the clear bottleneck, the Intel Core i5-11400F plays a supporting role that prevents the system from being completely unplayable. The processor is a 6-core, 12-thread part based on the Rocket Lake architecture, with a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. It has a 12 MB shared L3 cache and supports DDR4 memory. Its benchmark scores are respectable, with a Geekbench multi-core score of 7737 and a single-core score of 1777.

In Microsoft Flight Simulator, the CPU is responsible for simulating the aircraft's physics, the flight model, and the environment. The game is known to be heavily threaded, and the i5-11400F's 12 threads are likely utilized. The PassMark multithread score of 16908 and the 3DMark max threads score of 5652 suggest that the CPU has enough multi-threading capability to process the game's simulation layer. The Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 6022 is also a solid figure, indicating that the CPU can handle sustained loads without throttling.

However, the CPU's performance is effectively wasted in this configuration. The GPU's inability to keep pace means that the CPU is often idle, waiting for the next frame to be rendered. The benchmark results indicate that the CPU's 71st percentile ranking is far higher than the GPU's 5th percentile. This imbalance means that in a system with a more capable GPU, the i5-11400F would be able to deliver much higher frame rates. The data shows that the CPU is not the limiting factor, but rather the Arc B370 is holding back what is otherwise a competent mid-range processor. The 65W TDP and 14 nm process node also suggest that the CPU is not thermally constrained in this scenario, allowing it to maintain its boost clocks, but the system's overall performance will remain capped by the GPU regardless of CPU headroom.